Dablu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

2026 INSC 224 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1819-1821 OF 2011

DABLU ETC. … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH … RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1176 OF 2012

VINOD @ AJAY … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH … RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred by four accused/convicts

sentenced to life imprisonment in a case concerning the murder

of one Balkishan.

2. Signature Not Verified Criminal Appeals Nos. 1819-1821 of 2011 have been preferred Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Date: 2026.03.11

by accused Dablu (A-1), accused Kamlesh (A-2) and accused 17:01:25 IST Reason: 2

Pratap @ Pratap Narayan (A-5), whereas Criminal Appeal No.

1176 of 2012 has been preferred by accused Vinod @Ajay (A-4).

3. Out of the six accused persons, one Govind Singh (A-3) had died

earlier and the main accused Vikram remains absconding.

4. All the aforesaid appellants were convicted and sentenced to one

year rigorous imprisonment and for life along with fine of

Rs.500/- each under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian

Penal Code1 respectively. They were acquitted of the charges

under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989. The aforesaid conviction and sentence

have been upheld by the High Court vide impugned judgment

and order dated 09.11.2010 whereby the appeals preferred by

the appellants were dismissed.

5. The incident is of 03.06.2000. On the said date, at about 8:15

am, the deceased Balkishan who was the Chairman of

Watershed Committee was sitting at the Tihuli bus stand

waiting to travel to attend the Watershed Committee meeting.

At that time, all the six accused persons alighted from a bus

1 Hereinafter referred to as “the IPC” 3

armed with firearms. Vikram was alleged to be in possession of

a mouser; Govind Singh (now deceased) with a double barrel 12-

bore gun; Vinod @ Ajay with a single barrel 12-bore gun; and

the other three with country made pistols (kattas). It is alleged

that Vikram fired the first shot from behind a standing tractor-

trolley, which hit the deceased on his left hand. On being hit,

the deceased ran towards the village to save his life. He was

chased by all the accused persons who kept on firing

continuously. The deceased entered the house of one Rattan Lal

(PW-6). The accused persons followed him inside the house,

dragged him to the courtyard, and shot him at the temple at

point-blank range. The deceased died instantly. The accused

persons then ran away towards the jungle.

6. The First Information Report (Exh. P-3) was lodged on the same

day i.e. 03.06.2000 at 9:30 am at Police Station Uteela by

Budha Ram (PW-2), brother of the deceased against all the

aforesaid six accused persons.

7. The crime so committed was investigated and two chargesheets

(main and supplementary) were filed against the five accused 4

persons except the main accused Vikram, who was absconding.

Accordingly, two separate cases, Special Case No. 12 of 2001

and Special Case No. 1 of 2002 came to be registered, which

were later merged for trial and the lead case happened to be

Special Case No. 12 of 2001.

8. We have heard Shri S. Mahendran, learned counsel for the

appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1819-1821 of 2011 and Shri

Prafulla Kumar Behera, learned counsel for the appellant in

Criminal Appeal No. 1176 of 2012. Shri Shreeyash U. Lalit,

learned counsel had appeared for the State of Madhya Pradesh

and argued the matter in defence.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the alleged

offence is said to have been committed in two parts. The first

part relates to the incident of firing at the bus stand where the

first shot was allegedly fired at the deceased and the second

part relates to the incident of firing at the house of Rattan Lal

(PW-6), where the deceased was chased and fired upon. It is

contended that there is no reliable eye-witness to the second

incident. The only independent witness, Rattan Lal (PW-6), did 5

not see the accused appellants firing at the deceased and stated

that he had not seen the accused persons, except the main

accused Vikram, inside his house or feeling from there and had

only heard the firearm shots. It is further argued that the

prosecution witnesses are closely related to the deceased and

are interested witnesses. Their testimonies contain material

contradictions and improvements, hence their evidence cannot

be said to be trustworthy. The presence of the witnesses at the

spot is also doubtful. It is also submitted that no recovery of

weapons or incriminating material was made from the present

appellants and the medical and forensic evidence does not

conclusively support the prosecution case. Learned counsel

further contended that the prosecution has failed to establish

the participation of the appellants with any specific overt act so

as to attract the application of Section 149 IPC. It is also argued

that there are serious procedural lapses in the investigation

including non-compliance with the mandatory requirements

under Sections 157 and 174 CrPC and the possibility of the FIR

being ante-timed cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, 6

it is submitted that the conviction of the appellants is

unsustainable in law.

10. Shri Shreeyash U. Lalit, learned counsel for the State submitted

that there was a long drawn political rivalry between the main

accused Vikram and the deceased. Therefore, there was a clear

motive on part of the accused persons who accompanied the

main accused to kill the deceased. All the accused persons were

part of the unlawful assembly as they had alighted from the

same bus with firearms, which indicated that they had come

with a common motive and as such were all vicariously liable

for the offence of killing the deceased. Further, the incident of

firing at the bus stand which hit the elbow of the deceased is

clearly proved and it is established that all the accused chased

the deceased, who entered the house of one Rattan Lal (PW-6),

where he was dragged and shot. The recovery of cartridges from

the courtyard of the house of Rattan Lal (PW-6) and the medical

report showing the number of entry and exit wounds on the

deceased amply prove that all the accused were involved in

firing. Accordingly, the courts below have not committed any 7

illegality in convicting and sentencing them despite the fact that

there may be some discrepancy in the ocular evidence of the

witnesses and some unnatural behaviour on their part.

11. The ocular evidence of Budharam (PW-2), the brother of the

deceased, who lodged the first information report proves that

there was a long-standing political enmity between the families

of the main accused Vikram and the deceased Balkishan. The

wives of both of them had contested the panchayat election from

two different political parties in the year 1994, wherein the wife

of the deceased defeated the wife of the main accused Vikram.

The said ocular evidence stands supported by the other

witnesses PW-5 and PW-7, one being the brother of the

deceased and the other his nephew. In view of the above

evidence, and nothing contrary to it, it is evident that the main

accused Vikram had a long-standing rivalry with the deceased

and, thus, had the motive to kill him.

12. It is also a fact established from the consistent evidence of the

witnesses that on the fateful day, the main accused Vikram and

the other accused persons arrived at the Tihuli bus stand in a 8

bus. They were seen alighting from the bus with firearms.

Vikram had a mouzer, Govind Singh (A-3), since deceased had

a double-barrel 12-bore gun, Vinod (A-4) with a single-barrel

12-bore gun, and the remaining three had country-made

pistols. The very fact that all of them came together armed with

firearms clearly proves that they were part of the unlawful

assembly and had a common motive. Therefore, the provisions

of Section 149 IPC are clearly attracted, and even if any one of

them had not committed an overt act, they are vicariously liable

for the death of the deceased Balkishan. It may also be noted

that the evidence on record proves that after the first shot was

fired at the deceased at the bus stand by the main accused

Vikram, all of them chased the deceased to the house of Rattan

Lal (PW-6) where a number of shots were fired which were heard

by the independent witness Rattan Lal (PW-6). This in itself

proves that all of them were involved in the incident.

13. It is settled in law that in view of Section 149 IPC, every member

of the unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for acts done by

anyone of them to achieve a common object. Therefore, two 9

things are essential to attract Section 149 IPC. The first is

“unlawful assembly” and the second is “common object”. The

presence of the accused persons as part of the unlawful

assembly is sufficient for conviction even if no overt act is

imputed to each one of them individually. In the case at hand,

all the accused persons had alighted from the bus together

armed with firearms, thus, they were part of the unlawful

assembly and had arrived at the bus stand with a common

object. The movement of the accused persons in the above

manner is sufficient enough to draw an inference that they had

a common object. Therefore, the presence of the accused

persons in the unlawful assembly to achieve a common object

makes all of them vicariously liable for the acts of the unlawful

assembly.

14. The oral evidence of most of the witnesses, i.e., Naval Kishore

(PW-3)-son of the deceased, Mahesh (PW-5)-nephew of the

deceased, Pritam (PW-7)-nephew of the deceased and Kashi

Ram (PW-9)-the brother of the deceased, is virtually the same.

They all have stated that they have witnessed the accused 10

persons alighting from the bus and that all of them after the

first shot was fired at the bus stand, chased the deceased up to

the house of Rattan Lal (PW-6) where a number of shots were

fired, killing the deceased.

15. The fact that they admitted having seen the incident at the bus

stand, and yet took no steps either to save the deceased or to

take him to the hospital once he was injured or dead may be

very unnatural behaviour on their part, but nothing much

hinges upon that in the light of the other evidence on record

which goes on to prove the commission of the offence by the

accused persons.

16. There is no dispute to the fact that the main accused Vikram is

still absconding, meaning thereby that he is trying to escape for

the simple reason that in his subconscious mind he accepts

himself to be guilty of the commission of the offence along with

his accomplices. There is also no dispute that the other accused

were accomplices of him and were part of the unlawful assembly

who had arrived at the bus stand fully armed, thus, having a

common intention.

11

17. The post-mortem report and the statement of Dr. V. K. Diwan

(PW-1) who conducted the post-mortem, clinchingly prove that

the deceased suffered multiple gunshot wounds with an entry

wound near the right eye, on the chest and on the lower back.

There were three exit wounds also. About 40 pellets (charras)

were recovered from the body of the deceased. The doctor was

of the clear opinion that all the injuries were caused by firearms

and were sufficient to cause death. Simply for the reason that

the doctor could not confirm if the injuries received by the

deceased were from one weapon or multiple weapons does not

make any difference so as to discard his evidence in entirety.

18. Besides the above, the recovery of the empty cartridges from the

courtyard of Rattan Lal (PW-6) as well as the ballistic reports

(Exh. P-11 and P-13) prove that they were fired from a 12-bore

gun, though not from the gun which was seized from one of the

accused Govind Singh (A-3). In a way, the evidence proves that

the main accused Vikram fired at the deceased at the bus stand,

which hit his elbow, and that the deceased suffered multiple

gunshot wounds, which were opined to have been fired from a 12

12-bore gun. Thus, the involvement of not only the main

accused Vikram but also the other accused who were carrying

firearms, is duly established.

19. The mere fact that the independent witness PW-6 did not see

any of the accused persons firing upon the deceased or fleeing

away from his house except Vikram, does not make any

difference, nor does it belie the prosecution story that all the

accused had chased the deceased from the bus stand to his

house and that multiple shots were fired resulting in the death

of the deceased. This in itself is sufficient to rope in all the

accused by applying Section 149 IPC.

20. The argument of non-compliance with Section 157 CrPC in itself

is not fatal to the prosecution or sufficient to hold that the

accused persons are not guilty of the commission of the alleged

offence. The High Court has properly dealt with the above aspect

and has rightly ignored the same as admittedly the above

alleged procedural lapse, if any, was not proved by summoning

the record of the court of the magistrate.

13

21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the

opinion that the judgments and orders passed by the two courts

below, do not suffer from any illegality which may require to be

disturbed by us in appeal. Accordingly, the appeals are

dismissed confirming the conviction and the sentence imposed

upon the appellants. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

22. The appellants are on bail. They are directed to surrender

forthwith to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.

23. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

……………………………………J. [Pankaj Mithal]

……………………………………J. [S.V.N. Bhatti] New Delhi;

March 11, 2026.